What do You Think of Windows 7?

42

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

dwknapp

Did a fresh install of Win7 OEM on a Dell 4550 P4/2.4Ghz 1GB ram, ATI 9800 AIW video.  Runs glass interface and everything else just fine.  Tried to load the ATI AIW TV tuner drivers.  No joy on that and had to back off to get my video back as something about the driver install jumbled the screen.  Had been using the RC version on an old HP dc7100 and that worked well as well.  Very happy with result.  Since I have been playing with the RC for a good while, the learning curve was pretty much already taken care of.

Also using the new MS A/V so did not have install something else, although I use Avast! on my other systems. 

A problem arose when I tried to install and use Outlook 2002 (I think) as my e-mail client with my old .pst file copied over to the new OS.  It would not save the account passwords, which turned out to be a known issue even back in Vista days.  Tried switching to Live Mail client.  Problem with deleting unwanted mails and multiple clients, so I said screw those apps and went to Gmail as my POP3/SMTP/gmail client and have had no problems.

avatar

rippy45

I feel like I was one of the lucky ones, I started with Windows 7 Beta about a week after Microsoft started the downlaods for the Beta testers, then I grabed the Windows RC and I am still runnung with it for now.

I did purchase the Windows 7 Home Premium for my wife and the Pro for myself.

I had some troubles with my machine, the Northbrige went South and I ended up reinstalling the Windows RC several times. Each time I reinstalled the 64 bit program it became simpler and I really enjoied the process even though it was a drag not having my computer running right.

I eventally had to replace my motherboard, and even stepped up to some DD3 Ram and a Quad core, not all bad.

However, is there more inovations  when you actually install the true OS from the RC ?

 I was never fooled into buying Vista as I had heard nothing good about the OS, I stuck with XP and finally went for the 64 bit version and really had fun looking for drivers and software that would work with the 64 bit.

So as the Beta program came out I was already expecting to hunt for drivers and software, so !!!!

 So pat yourself on the back and a job well done for all of us that played with the Beta and RC versions, and assisted Microsoft to offer up this excellent OS that Vista was suppose to be many years ago.

 

Thanks to all you at MaximumPC 

avatar

azstrathack

I spent an entire day just getting it loaded onto my system and it has had a few fits and starts mostly over some of my legacy equipment like my TV card and I had some issues finding an acceptable 64 bit driver for my psc2410 but am finding that the Win 7 does a pretty good job of sniffing them out and loading them on its own. I had to point it in the general direction of the hardware but most things have been very easy. I have had a few lockups but mostly from my netflix while watching movies. I am looking into the new browser settings.

The desktop is nice and pretty and there are a lot of useful tools, I just need a chance to go through and decide what I like and what I dont. Very happy with the launch and I waited to get the family pack and paid about $134 for three upgrade licenses. Not too bad. The other systems will be 32 bit.

avatar

RAMBO

Don't know yet, M.S. charged my card 19th Oct. Ordered 7-10-09, but will not get until 10-27-09.

What is up with that? All people who ordered early should get priorority in getting

their products! The worst of it, is they did not notifiy me what was going on, until

four days after they took my money and a day after that gave me a tracking number.

I understand that the response was overwhelming for Win7, but plannig ahead in running a business is

crucial for grate customer relations, M.S. dropped the ball on this one, hope they don't in keeping Win7 up to date

with patch's and security! Feel like a mushroom, kept in the dark and fhead a bunch of shit...

Thanks for nothing MicoShaft! Sure hope you read this Mr. Lip Ballmer.

avatar

mattman059

Well I never got a call from greek squad at best buy. but I went in and
picked up my Pc. they installed 32 bit  instead of 64 like they said
they would. and they did it as a upgrade instead of a clean install.
when I called them back, they said it could not be done that way. So, I
ended up paying $39.99 and I hasve just finished installing win7 64bit
myself.

Problems with your logic:
#1. You went to Geek Squad
#2. You EXPECTED them to call you
#3. You Paid them for services you did not ask for.

you can ALWAYS do a clean install OMG LOL! back up your files. and wipe that bi*** clean. fresh install. Done. what a bunch of morons.

avatar

frizzly

Well I never got a call from greek squad at best buy. but I went in and picked up my Pc. they installed 32 bit  instead of 64 like they said they would. and they did it as a upgrade instead of a clean install. when I called them back, they said it could not be done that way. So, I ended up paying $39.99 and I hasve just finished installing win7 64bit myself.

 

Frizzly Mejere

"Once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

avatar

frizzly

when I got my latests  PC from bestbuy, they said just bring in my receipt and they will give me a copy of windows 7 off the shelf. so i cancelled my pre order. yesterday when i went in they said the only way I could get it is if I pay $39.99 for them to install it. they said it would only take 2 hours. lets just say, I am still waiting for my computer 20 hours and 15 min. later. after the first 6 hours, I called them and they told me it was almost done and they would call me back when finished. still no word. I will be calling them as soon as i finish writing this.  8-(

 Frizzly Mejere

"Once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

avatar

kris79

You wanna know what's amazing - the difference in individual experiences. How is this possible? Even between the RC version and the RTM versions in the same machine!

Got the new OS and installed last night in the same computer that I've had relatively little problems with while using Windows RC. After installing on a brand new SSD, my raid 5 drives don't appear. No problem, I can fix that.  No internet connectivity. No problem, I can fix that. Boot manager comes up and makes me select from three different versions of Windows on my machine. No problem, I can fix that. Wait a minute! This didn't happen when I installed Windows RC months ago. WTF? I thought that this was going to be the easiest install ever? What happened Microsoft?

avatar

lipka

I have had atleast 10 crashes (BSODs and lockups) with Windows 7 (final release - Ultimate 64bit Steve Ballmer's signatured edition) in just 2 weeks of use (tried atleast 3 new installation on the same machine). In comparison, I have had only 1 crash with Windows 7 (RC - Ultimate 64bit) in over 4 months of use.

I have not changed my rig - quad core, 8GB ram, ATI HD 4870, RAID 0 HDDs... etc.

For me, they really picked the wrong candidate!

I have also used Vista, XP and 95, etc. 

So, Windows 7 final release (RTM 7600) is the worst Windows experience I have ever had.

avatar

lunchbox73

Iv'e been using the RC on my work computer for months. I like it but there's nothing that's got me all hot and bothered to buy it for my Vista PC at home. That still runs great so I'm sticking with Vista for a while (plus I'm broke ;)

avatar

NoCtrl

I just got my pre-ordered copy from NewEgg today.  I thought the box would be bigger.

avatar

mattman059

Seriously? You're going to let the RC and a Beta copy prevent you from trying Win7? Okay dude, your choice but i highly recommend  trying win7...ive used the full version since i got it from MSDNAA in August, and it is flawless. Sure there are a few things that MS could have done better, but Hey...it's the best thing I've seen running on a computer in a loong time.

avatar

savage4naves

I have been running the Beta and RC releases and they were great.

My Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RTM available on TechNet back in August is still awesome.

Too bad the general public had to wait until October 22 to get the finalized build!

 

A day without laughter is a day wasted...

avatar

DoctorX

I have been using windows 7 since Jan with build 7100... I was very happy then and i am very happy now... I ran Vista and still thought it sucked before that.  Even in the early state, it was a big improvement on Vista.  I am now runnint the x64 RTM code and again i love it.  This is coming from a linux/unix guy.  I have 3 upgrade copies showing up tomorrow.

 I have 750GB of games installed... in fact i have a few games i could not get running under xp and vista that work under 7.  I have none of the incompatibilites that people are saying. 

avatar

wk

I used RC version for few weeks.

my first impression is awesom, until now i installed win 7 on 4 different laptops and except for Ati driver i didn't have to install any driver.that is definitly progress. talk about easy installation, with win 7 even my mom could install new OS.

performance is very good (low memory usage comparing to vista)

media player is good (not great) but at least it plays most codec properly.

new task bar and themes are wonderful.

very few annoyments, like paint ribbon (which is very dum idea), unable to set classic start menu.

Overall i think microsoft learned a lesson from vista "failure" and start to correct things.

 

MPC is my home page

avatar

blackcat77

I used the Beta and RC versions for about 4 months on two of our computers and while I liked the eye candy and some of the new convenience features, I was having driver issues, a few incompatibilities and a disturbing number of blue screens.  I realize that's par for the course with any pre-release product, but it was enough to send me back to Vista and for the time being, I think I'll keep it.  With SP2, it's just as secure and speedy as Win 7, and assuming you know how to shut off the un-necessary startups, it's not a system hog either.

This will be the first time I've not gotten the new MS operating system on the first day it came out, and I've had PCs since the days of 3.1.  I even had three copies pre-ordered back when you could get them for $50 each, but I cancelled.  I guess I'm not as adventurous as I used to be -- now I want something that's stable and compatible from the word go and for now, that means Vista SP2.

avatar

damicatz

There is not much difference from Vista. It's basically just Vista
with a few shiny new graphics, a few new applications, a new taskbar
and some other minor tweaks. It's not worth the upgrade price 

And it's still Windows. And it's still loaded with DRM and
"Protected Media Paths" designed to restrict how you use your computer.
And it still has the Windows Activation/Windows Genuine DISadvange
malware.

There still isn't a true 64-bit version of Windows.
Windows 7 "x64" is really a 32-bit operating system that uses 64-bit
memory addresses, similar to how Windows 3.1 was a 16-bit operating
system with 32-bit memory addresses. The data types are still the same
as in 32-bit Windows unless you use a special non-standard long long
data type that is not portable. And you still can't use unsigned kernel
mode drivers on Windows x64 (code signing, and certificates in general,
are, in and of themselves, a big scam based on creating an artificial
scarcity). So with Windows 7 x64, my computer will only run kernel
drivers approved by Microsoft and their cohorts (read : Verisign).
Contrast that to Linux where my computer does what I tell it to, and
not what Microsoft tells it to (why do you think they removed the My
from My Computer with Vista?).

The new Aero is only
impressive to those who have never used anything besides Windows.
Compiz can do everything the new Aero can do and a lot more.
Compiz makes both Aero/DWM and Quartz look like toys by comparison. 

avatar

SpazzAttack

Xp x64, Vista x64 and 7 x64 are all true 64-bit operating systems. WoW64 is the emulation layer that enables 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows. The data typing is backwardly compatible so we can run most all of our old software.

damicatz, you are just as clueless about everything else you posted as well, so I won't waste my time. Yeesh!

avatar

DoctorX

 Show how little you actually know...and you call yourself a linux person...

 Win7 x64 is a true 64-bit os... like x64bit version of Ubuntu.  The 32-bit ablility is using a virtual machine type call called WindowsOnWindows.  This is the same way Ubuntu x64 runs 32bit programs.  All you do is add the libraries.

 Compiz works great until you want to run any games.  Slow the system down a lot.  Compiz still needs a lot of work.. (and yes i have used it. )  I had to turn it off my work pc because of it being unstable.  

 I would ask you to either do a little more research before stating off truths like you did above or better yet, quit trolling this site.

 I use both linux and windows.  I have very deep knowledge of both and more important, I have an open mind.

 

 

 

avatar

damicatz

I have done my research. You, obviously, haven't. I can also provide a citable source : http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html (Windows uses LLP64, Linux, the BSDs, Mac OSX, Solaris and most others use LP64).

I am not talking about WoW32.

"64-bit" Windows programs by default, still uses a 32-bit data model. A program must be rewritten to use a long long data type in order to get a 64-bit data type. In Linux, recompiling a program is all you have to do to get it using 64-bit data types. In Windows, you must do significant replumbing in order for an application to get the most benefit from a 64-bit port (which is probably why most 64-bit vs 32-bit benchmarks on Windows show little difference; as it is most companies couldn't be bothered to even port their programs to 64-bit let alone properly optimize them for it. This is all because Microsoft chose to cater to a bunch of sloppy programmers that couldn't be bothered to figure out how to use typedef to avoid making hardcoded assumptions about data types.

As for Compiz, it works fine with games if you use it with DRI2/Gallium3D.

avatar

SpazzAttack

64 and 32 bits refer to the size of the primary registers in the processor (not counting any vector processing registers).  32-bit programs handle atomic data types between 1 and 32 bits wide.  64-bit programs handle atomic data types between 1 and 64 bits wide.  A 64-bit programming model is a superset of the 32-bit model.  Both models, for example, support 16-bit data types.  But it doesn’t follow that 32 and 64 bit models aren't true 32 or 64 bit because they also support 16-bits.

Please understand something: converting any 32-bit program to 64-bit is a lot more than just "recompiling a program...to get it using 64-bit data types."  Under ALL operating systems--even Linux-- you need to perform "significant replumbing" to convert a program.  The only way a program can be built on the fly using either 64-bit or 32-bit memory models is to have its source code carefully constructed with conditional compilation blocks and carefully chosen identifier definitions that build according to what memory model is chosen.  And even then it isn’t completely fool proof.  It is no easier on Linux than it is on Windows or any other OS for that matter.

The unix.org page you cite is only talking about abstract simple data type identifiers under a C compiler and how they can use the choice of identifiers to help portability between 32 and 64 bit compilations.   Whether you want to call a 64-bit data type “longlong” or “Int64” is completely arbitrary. I have done lots of cross-platform software development in my time; LP64 helps, but it is no magic bullet.

“This is all because Microsoft chose to cater to a bunch of sloppy programmers that couldn't be bothered to figure out how to use typedef to avoid making hardcoded assumptions about data types.”

This is a patently absurd and asinine statement from someone who knows nothing about professional software development.  It takes a lot of time, and therefore a lot of money, to convert any legacy application from 32 to 64 bits.  It’s a hell of a lot more complex than knowing how to use “typedef.”  Most of the time it is just not worth the expense: how many 4GB+ Word files have you edited lately?

*crickets chirping *

It has nothing to do with sloppy programming.  If you have an application with literally millions of lines of legacy code, regardless of the operating system, you just can’t change it to a new programming model by re-defining a few compiler identifiers.  Anyone who believes that is seriously deluded.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, fool.

Over the years, Microsoft has done a remarkable job of preserving backwards compatibility in their support of legacy software.  Windows has hundreds of times the number of applications available for it than any other operating system.  I have 12-year-old, 32-bit, Windows applications I can still run under Windows 7 x64.   Try running a Mac OS 7 application under Mac OS X sometime…lots of luck with that, pal.  And if you want to talk about sloppy programming, get under the hood of Mac OS X and look at the mess they have there with NextStep and Carbon.  Since the UNIX hobbyist geeks don't have millions of users depending on their software, they can afford to give their puny user base the finger and not support legacy applications. 

Stop sounding like an ignoramus and go troll somewhere else, please.

avatar

damicatz

1.I haven't edited any 4 gigabyte word files today because I don't use word files or the word file format. I use OpenDocument.

2.Mac OS 7 (more specifically, System 7), came out in 1991. Back then, Windows 3.0 was the latest version of Windows. Try running a 16-bit 3x program under the x64 version of Windows 7 sometime and tell me how it works. 

Wine on the other hand is more than capable of running said 16-bit applications, even using a 64-bit version of Linux.

It's not even a proper comparison. Mac OS backwards compatibility issues arrive from the result of two separate platform transitions (m68k -> PowerPC and PowerPC -> x86) and have nothing to do with the design of the operating system itself. If Microsoft had decided that Windows would only be for the PowerPC, they'd have the same issues (and they would have done this with IA64/Itanic if AMD hadn't stepped in and offered a superior x86-based 64-bit solution).

3.By UNIX hobbyist geeks, I assume you mean people like Intel, IBM, Red Hat and Novell? Right? Because they contribute a huge amount of code to the Linux world.

And you're right, millions aren't dependant on the work of the "UNIX hobbyist geeks". Billions are. 

Banks do not use Windows Server, they use UNIX. Researchers all over the world use *NIX. The very website you are on now is running on a Linux server. The majority of servers on the internet are *NIX based (despite Microsoft's attempt to inflate their numbers by bribing GoDaddy to use Windows Server on their domain parking pages.

The root domain servers of the internet do not run Windows Server, they run *NIX. Even Microsoft has used Linux in the past; using Linux servers to shield their unstable Windows servers from denial of service attacks that they couldn't handle.

Chances are, your new fancy HDTV is running an embedded version of Linux. Your GPS too. Google runs on Linux. Walmart uses both UNIX and Linux extensivel.

Need I go on?

4.You've answered your own question.

Proper programming practises dictate that you do not make any hardcoded assumptions about the environment your program will compile on and that you plan for the future.

With the exception of programs using legacy x86 features (e.g virtual 8086 mode) and programs using assembly,  it is not that difficult to port a program to x86-64 provided you wrote clean code that is written independent of any target architecture. Using carefully constructed conditional compilation blocks and carefully constructed identifier definitions is called "good programming". Your program should not be written with assumptions about the target platform and any necessary platform specific code should be written so that it is easily isolated and substituted with code for another platform.

As for the time consuming nature of 64-bit work and the expenses of it, it would be a lot less time consuming had people written their code in an architecture-independent format. I might add that every program I am using on this computer (running 64-bit Debian Linux) is a NATIVE 64-bit application. I have no 32-bit software whatsoever. 

Why?

A.UNIX coders tend to have a better idea of what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't plenty of idiot programmers on the UNIX side of things but UNIX doesn't have "tools" like Visual Studio that do all the work for you. The problem with Windows programming nowadays is that no one actually learns anything about programming anymore; they just learn how to use Visual Studio. They know nothing about what goes on underneath the hood and most of the people they churn out of the college factories' C# classes probably couldn't even tell the difference between the heap and the stack or how many registers x86 or x86-64 has.

B.The Linux world is mostly free software. This is another reason why proprietary closed-source software is bad. Pretty much everything in the Linux world has been ported to 64-bit at this point in time. Also, Linux, being non-exclusive to the x86, has had 64-bit versions years before the first 64-bit x86 ever came out.

There are 64-bit crossplatform programs on Linux that even Windows doesn't have versions of. Where is the Windows x64 version of Flash? I'm on Linux and using a 64-bit browser with 64-bit flash and 64-bit java. Given Firefox's ever increasing appetite for memory usage (on all platforms), this is a good thing. The need for 64-bit drivers on Linux has rarely been a problem since the majority of them are open-source anyways.

5.As someone who both works for a company who produces commercial software and as someone who has to deal with big software companies in a B2B relationship on a daily basis, I am very familiar with the amount of BS that goes on in commercial software development on a daily basis.

Commercial software development is riddled with ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy and managers who don't know the first thing about programming computers. Software development would be a lot faster and a lot cheaper without the mountains of red tape and incompetent managers who both interfere in the work of a programmer (whilst themselves having not the first clue about what they are interfering in) and who drive the direction of a program (despite, again, having no interference).

avatar

SpazzAttack

"1...I use OpenDocument"

Well, I doubt you have edited any 4GB OpenDocument files, either.  Boy, did you miss the point.

"2.Mac OS 7 (more specifically, System 7), came out in 1991. Back then, Windows 3.0 was the latest version of Windows. Try running a 16-bit 3x program under the x64 version of Windows 7 sometime and tell me how it works."

OK, try Mac OS 9 and it won't work either.

"3...[insert lots of pompous UNIX hand-wringing here]...Need I go on?" 

Again, you totally missed the point: the subject was the consumer desktop, not servers.  And yes, I have had to deal with plenty of UNIX geeks who maintain their server software like it's a hobby and behave like no one is affected when they rewrite something that wasn't broken to begin with.

“4… As for the time consuming nature of 64-bit work and the expenses of it, it would be a lot less time consuming had people written their code in an architecture-independent format.”

Unfortunately, outside of “Hello World” it is nearly impossible to write a serious application (I’m not talking about command-line console applications either) in a perfectly architecture-independent format and have it perform at its best for the targeted platform.

“A.UNIX coders tend to have a better idea of what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't plenty of idiot programmers on the UNIX side of things but UNIX doesn't have "tools" like Visual Studio that do all the work for you. The problem with Windows programming nowadays is that no one actually learns anything about programming anymore; they just learn how to use Visual Studio. They know nothing about what goes on underneath the hood and most of the people they churn out of the college factories' C# classes probably couldn't even tell the difference between the heap and the stack or how many registers x86 or x86-64 has.”

This is absolutely hilarious!  There are so many crazy assertions in this paragraph that I don’t even know where to begin.  Following your logic...anyone using IDEs like Eclipse under UNIX doesn’t understand programming either.  What? You think using a console command line and make files makes you a better programmer?  No, it makes you less productive.  Going to the logical conclusion of your line of thinking then, people who used punch cards for programming a TOPPS-10 OS must be even better programmers.

“B.The Linux world is mostly free software.” 

Yes, and 9 times of 10 you get exactly what you paid for. 

“5.As someone who both works for a company who produces commercial software and as someone who has to deal with big software companies in a B2B relationship on a daily basis…[etc., etc]”

It sounds to me like you have never written a line of commercial code a day in your life. 

avatar

snapple00

Lame attempt at trying to sound smart. No one cares about linux.

avatar

mattman059

No one cares about linux.

BULL SHIIT LOL.  WOW im going to have to sig that one.

avatar

snapple00

New to the internet?

avatar

DoctorX

I do... but then i like both linux and windows

avatar

rmoat

I have been using the MSDN Windows 7 RTM release since August, and have loved it. I think it is amazing how it just works with my SATA RAID and AHCI mode with the built-in SATA RAID chipset. No more slipstreaming drivers into the Windows Installation, or even adding device drivers upon setup.

I have not had Windows 7 crash once, and all of my programs work flawlessly! Even a few that did not work correctly with the later updates in Windows XP work in Windows 7.

Windows Media Center is just simply amazing!

I am also finding more and more features that have been integrated into Windows 7 that make using the OS better than ever. Some people don't find Libraries useful. I do! Quick and easy access to Documents, Music, and Videos is great.

The new taskbar is great, and it is nice to be able to pause, play, and skip to different songs through the taskbar when Windows Media Player is playing. Dragging the window to the top, or bottom of the screen is a very nice way to maximize and/or minimize the window. The Aero Peak, is very cool.

Built-in ISO burning, as well as DVD maker (although limited), and Windows Movie Maker is nice. It is very cool how you can tell the OS to use a DVD-+R and CD-R disc like a USB Flash drive which easily allows you to copy and delete files. 

 Windows 7 simply put... AMAZING!

avatar

JohnP

 I too have NEVER had a blue screen or crash since I started using Win7 6 months ago (couple of lockups in a particular app but did not bring the computer down). Rarely reboot. Never a driver issue and most devices are truly plug and play. Interface just keeps getting better the more I get familiar with it. Love Homegroup. WMC is excellent for my HTPC.

Congratulations MicroSoft, you have a real winner here. Now I just need to buy a half a dozen licenses or so!

avatar

Razicus

I've been using the release candidates up to my now current Windows 7 Professional. So far, I am loving it. Speedy, efficient, and reliable. Now I just have to convince the rest of my family and friends to upgrade...

avatar

kris79

Nice job MPC keeping us up to speed on the rollout of Windows 7! I've appreciated your many articles about the new OS.

Now, on Windows 7's birthday, it seems a bit anticlimactic since most of us have been using some form of this OS for a few months. My new software should be delivered today, and I hope that it cleans up the few problems that I've had with the RC version such as the computer not always closing down, an IDE drive not installing, and a few other minor things. If not, at least I'm confident now that MS will have the fixes before long.

The big question is what makes this OS good enough to make someone buy it instead of continuing to use XP, for example. The short answer is - I don't know - yet.  I hope that the simplest answer will be "because it works better than ever". As for that - so far, so good...

avatar

jcollins

I'm thinking at the very base level, extra security over using WinXP.

avatar

dreamsburnred

 I love windows 7. XP is old, and vista is slow. Windows 7 is simply the answer.

 Thank you Microsoft in releasing the best product today.

Hoster of http://dreamburnred.blogspot.com

avatar

lancethepants

I love using Windows 7, and won't ever go back to using XP or Vista.  It's so speedy.  One wierd anomaly I'm not sure about; my netbook boots faster into windows 7 than my desktop that has two raptors in raid 0.  Either way the both boot fairly quickly, best os ever.  Got the RTM a bit back through MSDN.

avatar

Sovereign

I've been running Windows 7 since the Beta stage.  It's worked well for everything I've needed.  Stable, fast and easy to use.

avatar

Frameboy

I like it...

 

I ran the RC for only a couple of months, and it was faster, more stable and easier to use.  I'm not sure I like the action bar, but I'll get used to it.

avatar

Techrocket9

Windows 7 isn't bad, there's just not much to differentiate it from Vista.The new task bar is nice. So is aero peek. It feels a little more responsive, if only from a cut down in artificial delay. The major improvements I saw to boot/shutdown time over Vista disappeared when I installed all my usual programs. (Nothing fancy, Steam, Ditto, NIS 2010, etc.). It's not bad, per say, but it is definitely not super-stupendous-knock your socks off cool. Add the task bar and new aero features to Vista, and I would probably use that because I prefer its general appearance to that of Windows 7. (Yes, I know that there are programs that do that, but they don't work too well). I'm sure someone will release a Vista theme for Windows 7, so I can just use that when it comes out. Vista SP2 was fine, and Windows 7 is Vista SP2 with a few nice tweaks. I've been using the RTM for weeks, and the mysterious compatibility issues that accompany a new OS and the continuing headaches I am getting from the new sync center are dampening my enthusasim. It is still a fine OS, but it isn't a "radical departure" from Vista.

 

Edit: I found a Vista theme for seven: http://j.mp/Vista-Theme-4-7

_____________________________________________________ 

An army of pacifists can be defeated by one man with the will to fight.

avatar

lien_meat

Except for how much better it runs on my laptop than vista, I don't see Windows 7 as much more than a service pack.  Some of the features that people say they love about windows7's UI actually annoy me.  they look really cool, but I find when trying to actually use them productively, they just don't help me, in fact some slow me down.  Like taskbar grouping...don't like it, so I disabled it.  Peak is nice, ...I guess, but I NEVER actually find a need for it.  And snap gets in my way more often than it helps me too.  It's the same with the really fancy effects in compiz though.  I like desktop effects to make things pretty, but the "REALLY COOL LOOKING ONES" like desktop cube and stuff just DO NOT help day to day computing.  Regular desktop switching is fine, thanks.

I'm pretty sure most of the hype over windows 7 is just that, hype.  That's not to say that I don't like windows7, I do...its better than xp and vista...I just don't understand why everyone thinks its SUCH a big deal...it's clearly not revolutionary...

In fact, if anything, vista was revolutionary, but it just sucked at first.  Maybe if MS would have got it right the first time I'd be a bit more impressed.

Win7 still doesnt' have a much needed new filesystem (look at your OTHER modern options folks, ntfs just plain SUCKS), and a couple other things MS keeps promising and dropping, and I refuse to believe that it's so much more stable.

I've seen it crash on one of my friends computers more than once (moddern core2 duo rig built for pretty decent gaming, all the hardware is good/not broken), and it has rendered my laptop unbootable once too for what reason I still don't know, but the win7 cd repair program couldn't fix it, saying my hardware configuration had changed...it's a laptop, and it didn't change, and yes, the hardware all works fine.

Also, sometimes when I start a program, the program will start up and then crash about 1 second or 2 later.  This has happened on many different programs, but the main ones are utorrent, ie8, firefox, and pidgin that I've noticed.  Sometimes the process is still running but not responding, sometimes it is gone completely.  It also one time (back using RC) installed an update when I had told it NOT TO just 30 mins before.  That really REALLY pissed me off.

I should note that this is using a win7 pro RTM from MSDN on a inspiron 1525 laptop...which runs 7 really well actually, and I've been testing it since the beta, so I'm not one of those "I looked at the box and it was shiny, but I didn't install it cause it said windows on it, and I will bash anything that says windows on it" people.

I'm just saying, windows7 is DEFINATELY an improvement, but it is still DEFINATELY a typical windows OS.  I'm SURE it will get better and work brilliantly soon after some more updates, but right now it isn't as amazing the hype would lead you to believe it is.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

avatar

DoctorX

wow... i have none of your problems... I have 750GB of games installed (300+ in Steam).  Of course I am running the x64 version.  There is no way this is Vista SP2 (there was already a Vista SP2).  Fundamentally much more stable than the entire time i had Vista in both 32 and 64bit flavors.  I was on sp1 then i got the built 7100 and never looked back.  I use this pc for media center and gaming.  Vista sucked but 7 is a home run.  Blows XP out of the water.

avatar

Techrocket9

By the statement that this is Vista SP2 plus a few nice tweaks, I meant that this is Vista with the regular Vista SP2 Service Pack applied plus a few nice tweaks (task bar, peek, etc.).

 

_____________________________________________________ 

An army of pacifists can be defeated by one man with the will to fight.

avatar

Seana7a7

I feel the same.

avatar

Razor86

I used the beta, the Release Candidate, and got Windows 7 Pro RTM in mid August from my school.  Previously, I was dual booting XP and vista, primarily using XP.  I used Vista for games, and a couple of other things, but mostly used XP.  I had been multibooting the Windows 7 beta and RC, bouncing between it and XP for primary use.  Since installing Windows 7 Pro, I have never gone back to XP or Vista.  I have had no program compatability issues.  In fact, there were a couple of programs that didn't work with Vista, that do work with 7!

As far as my opinion of the program, everything has been great.  My one gripe is with the libraries function.  Quite frankly, I could complete do without them, and wish I could disable them all together.  I think the feature is for users who don't know where all their stuff is, and need an easy way to find it.  That's all well and good, but I wish the feature could be disabled.  

I have gotten quite a bit of use out of the windows snap feature too.  When I am watching videos for class, I can snap that and my program windows, following along with the videos step by step easily.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.